Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled Composite in Posterior Teeth: 12-month Results

3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials

To evaluate the impact of using ion-releasing liners on the 3-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations after selective caries excavation with polymer burs. 20 patients were enrolled in this trial. Each patient had two deep carious lesions, one on each side of the mouth. After selective caries removal using polymer bur (PolyBur P1, Komet, Brasseler GmbH Co. KG, Lemgo, Germany), cavities were lined with bioactive ionic resin composite (Activa Bioactive Base/Liner, Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) or resin-modified glass ionomer liner (Riva Light Cure, SDI, Bayswater, Victoria, Australia). All cavities were then restored with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350XT, 3M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA). All the tested materials were placed according to the manufacturers' instructions. Clinical evaluation was accomplished using World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria at baseline and after 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years. Data were analyzed using Mann-whitney U and Friedman tests (p < 0.05). The success rates were 100% for all resin composite restorations either lined with ion-releasing resin composite or resin-modified glass ionomer liner. Mann-whitney U test revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between both ion-releasing lining material groups for all criteria during the follow-up periods (p > 0.05). Resin composite restorations showed acceptable clinical performance over 3 years either lined with bioactive ionic or resin-modified glass ionomer liners after selective caries excavation preserving pulp vitality. After the 3-year follow-up period, Activa Bioactive and Riva Light Cure liners were clinically effective and they exhibited with the overlying composite restorations successful clinical performance.Trial registration number: NCT05470959. Date of registration: 22/7/2022. Retrospectively registered.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on restorative treatments for caries lesions: A report from the American Dental Association

BACKGROUND

An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs together with the ADA Science and Research Institute's program for Clinical and Translational Research conducted a systematic review and developed recommendations for the treatment of moderate and advanced cavitated caries lesions in patients with vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors searched for systematic reviews comparing carious tissue removal (CTR) approaches in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Trip Medical Database. The authors also conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing direct restorative materials in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel formulated 16 recommendations and good practice statements: 4 on CTR approaches specific to lesion depth and 12 on direct restorative materials specific to tooth location and surfaces involved. The panel conditionally recommended for the use of conservative CTR approaches, especially for advanced lesions. Although the panel conditionally recommended for the use of all direct restorative materials, they prioritized some materials over the use of others for certain clinical scenarios.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The evidence suggests that more conservative CTR approaches may decrease the risk of adverse effects. All included direct restorative materials may be effective in treating moderate and advanced caries lesions on vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth.

Direct materials for restoring caries lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs

BACKGROUND

The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of different direct restorative materials for treating cavitated caries lesions on anterior and posterior primary and permanent teeth.

TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of direct restorative materials commercially available in the United States placed in vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors conducted pair-wise meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and calculated measures of association and their 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis, which included data on Class I and Class II restorations on primary teeth and Class I, Class II, Class III, Class V, and root surface restorations on permanent teeth. Included studies assessed the effect of amalgam, resin composite, compomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass isomer cement, and preformed metal crowns. Moderate to very low certainty evidence suggested varying levels of effectiveness across restorative materials.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Owing to a relatively low event rate across various outcomes indicating restoration failure, there was limited evidence to support important differences between direct restorative materials used in practice.

Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the compliance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in posterior restorations with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement (CONSORT) statement and to analyze the risk of bias (RoB) of these studies.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS/BBO, and Cochrane Library. Only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals were included. The compliance with the CONSORT was evaluated in a 0-2 scale where 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the CONSORT mean score by journal, country, and RoB were performed. The RoB in RCTs was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool version 1.0.

RESULTS

A total of 15,476 studies were identified after duplicates removal. O only 202 meet the eligibility criteria, among which 31 were follow-up studies. Concerning the overall RoB, only 29 out of 171 were classified as low risk of bias. The overall mean CONSORT score was 19 ± 5.4 points, which means compliance of approximately 59%. Significant differences among countries, publication period, and RoB were observed (p < 0.001). The journal's impact factor was not correlated with the overall CONSORT score (p = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The adherence of RCTs conducted in posterior restorations to the CONSORT Statement is still low. In addition, most studies were classified as at unclear risk of bias. These results call up an urgent need for improvement.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Most RCTs conducted in posterior teeth have poor reporting and are mainly classified as having an unclear risk of bias.

Clinical Evaluation of Flowable Composite Materials in Permanent Molars Small Class I Restorations: 3-Year Double Blind Clinical Study

This study evaluated the 3-year clinical performance of four different flowable composite materials used in Small Class I restorations in permanent molars. This double-blinded, clinical study analyzed 229 Small Class I restorations/103 children at baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months with modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria. The tested flowable materials were Voco Grandio Flow + Voco Solobond M, Vivadent Tetric EvoFlow + Vivadent Excite, Dentsply X-Flow + Dentsply Prime&Bond NT, and 3M ESPE Filtek Supreme XT Flow + 3M ESPE Scotchbond Universal. The retention and marginal adaptation rates were highest for Grandio Flow and X Flow materials after 36 months, resulting in the highest score of clinical acceptability at 95.3% and 97.6%, respectively. The Tetric EvoFlow and Filtek Supreme XT Flow had the same retention rate after 36 months at 88.1%. Statistical significance was found in Grandio flow material in postoperative sensitivity criteria (p = 0.021). Tetric EvoFlow showed statistical differences in retention (p = 0.01), color match (p = 0.004), and marginal adaptation (p = 0.042). Filtek Supreme showed statistical differences in retention (p = 0.01) and marginal adaptation (p < 0.001). The flowable composite materials showed excellent clinical efficacy after 36 months of their clinical usage. There was no difference among the tested flowable composite materials quality in Small Class I restorations over time.

Nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid resin-based composite in patients with direct restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to answer the following research question: Are there differences in the color match and surface texture of nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid composite in patients with direct posterior restorations?

DATA

Randomized clinical trials that compared nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid composite in direct restoration in posterior teeth were included. For the analysis of the bias the risk of bias tool (RoB) was used. Meta-analyses of different pairs (nanofilled vs. hybrid and nanohybrid vs. hybrid composite) were conducted for surface texture and color match and other secondary outcomes at different follow-ups, using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I² statistics. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

SOURCES

A search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library and SIGLE, without restrictions. IADR abstracts (2001-2019), unpublished and ongoing trials registries, dissertations and theses were also searched.

STUDY SELECTION

28 studies remained. No study was considered to be at low RoB; four studies were judged to have high RoB, and the remaining were judged to have unclear RoB.

RESULTS

For the primary and secondary outcomes variables no significant differences were detected between nanofilled/nanohybrid restorations and hybrid composite restorations in any of the study follow-ups (p > 0.08). The body of evidence for surface texture and color match was classified as moderate or low.

CONCLUSION

No evidence of difference was found between nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid composite in any of the clinical parameters evaluated.

Effects of Different Application Techniques on Nanohybrid Composite Restorations Clinical Success

Introduction:

Dental composites have been used as a restorative material for a long time. However, they have their limitations.

Aims:

This study evaluated the effects of placement techniques on the clinical performance of class I composite resin restorations.

Methods:

A total of 40 patients with split-mouth design participated in this study. Each patient had two fillings according to the placement technique (either bulk or incremental packing) of the composite resin restorations. Group (A): was packed by Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill composite resin and Group (B): was incrementally packed with Tetric EvoCeram composite resin. Restorations of the teeth were evaluated on the same day, at one week, 3 months and 6 months to determine any signs of failure according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.

Results:

At different follow-up periods, the results showed no significant differences for retention, marginal integrity, surface stain, gingival bleeding, and secondary caries; however, there were significant differences in color match, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity.

Conclusion:

This study concluded that the nanohybrid resin composites demonstrated excellent clinical performance for 6 months follow up period.

Do Nanofilled/Nanohybrid Composites Allow for Better Clinical Performance of Direct Restorations Than Traditional Microhybrid Composites? A Systematic Review

This systematic review was carried out to assess the clinical effectiveness of nanofilled and nanohybrid composites used for direct restorations in comparison with microhybrid composites. The guidelines for the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses were followed. A search of articles published from July 1996 to February 2017 was performed in PubMed, SciVerse Scopus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, and the Cochrane Library. The present review selected only randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical performance of a nanofilled or nanohybrid composite for direct restorations with that of a microhybrid composite. The research found 201 studies. Twenty-one articles fulfilled the criteria of the present review. However, the included studies were characterized by great methodological diversities. As a general trend, nanofilled and nanohybrid composites were found to be capable of clinical performance, marginal quality, and resistance to wear similar to that of traditional composites without showing improved surface characteristics. The risk of bias of included studies was judged unclear or high. The clinical performance of nanofilled/nanohybrid composites was found to be comparable to that of traditional composites in the posterior area. The data concerning anterior and cervical restorations were insufficient. With regard to the esthetic properties, there is a compelling need for studies on anterior teeth in which the operators are kept unaware of the restorative material. Nanofilled/nanohybrid composites seem to be a valid alternative to traditional microhybrid composites, and at the moment, there is low-level evidence attesting a lack of their superiority.

Nanofilled Resin Composite Properties and Clinical Performance: A Review

The aim of this review was to compile recent evidence related to nanofilled resin composite materials regarding the properties and clinical performance. Special attention was given to mechanical properties, such as strength, hardness, abrasive wear, water sorption, and solubility. The clinical performance of nanocomposite materials compared with hybrid resin composites was also addressed in terms of retention and success rates, marginal adaptation, color match, and surface roughness. A search of English peer-reviewed dental literature (2003-2017) from PubMed and MEDLINE databases was conducted using the terms "nanocomposites" or "nanofilled resin composite" and "clinical evaluation." The list was screened, and 82 papers that were relevant to the objectives of this work were included in the review. Mechanical properties of nanocomposites are generally comparable to those of hybrid composites but higher than microfilled composites. Nanocomposites presented lower abrasive wear than hybrids but higher sorption values. Their clinical performance was comparable to that of hybrid composites.

Microtensile bond strength of bulk-fill restorative composites to dentin

BACKGROUND

To facilitate the easier placement of direct resin composite in deeper cavities, bulk fill composites have been introduced. The Mechanical stability of fillings in stress bearing areas restored with bulk-fill resin composites is still open to question, since long term clinical studies are not available so far. Thus, the objective of the study was to evaluate and compare the microtensile bond strength of three bulk-fill restorative composites with a nanohybrid composite.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Class I cavities were prepared on sixty extracted mandibular molars. Teeth were divided into 4 groups (n= 15 each) and in group I, the prepared cavities were restored with nanohybrid (Filtek Z250 XT) restorative composite in an incremental manner. In group II, III and IV, the bulk-fill composites (Filtek, Tetric EvoCeram, X-tra fil bulk-fill restoratives) were placed as a 4 mm single increment and light cured. The restored teeth were subjected to thermocycling and bond strength testing was done using instron testing machine. The mode of failure was assessed by scanning electron microscope (SEM). The bond strength values obtained in megapascals (MPa) were subjected to statistical analysis, using SPSS/PC version 20 software.One-way ANOVA was used for groupwise comparison of the bond strength. Tukey's Post Hoc test was used for pairwise comparisons among the groups.

RESULTS

The highest mean bond strength was achieved with Filtek bulk-fill restorative showing statistically significant difference with Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill (p< 0.003) and X-tra fil bulk-fill (p<0.001) composites. Adhesive failures are mostly observed with X-tra fil bulk fill composites, whereas mixed failures are more common with other bulk fill composites.

CONCLUSIONS

Bulk-fill composites exhibited adequate bond strength to dentin and can be considered as restorative material of choice in posterior stress bearing areas. Key words:Bond strength, Bulk-fill restoratives, Configuration factor, Polymerization shrinkage.

Clinical performance of Class I nanohybrid composite restorations with resin-modified glass-ionomer liner and flowable composite liner: A randomized clinical trial

Background:

Liners play a vital role in minimizing polymerization shrinkage stress by elastic bonding concept and increase the longevity and favorable outcome for composite restorations.

Aims:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of nanohybrid composite restorations using resin-modified glass-ionomer and flowable composite liners.

Settings and Design:

A single-centered, double-blinded randomized clinical trial, with split-mouth design and equal allocation ratio that was conducted in the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics.

Materials and Methods:

In forty patients, a total of eighty Class I restorations were placed with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner (FUJI II LC, GC America) in one group and flowable composite liner (smart dentin replacement/SDR, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA) in another group. All restorations were clinically evaluated by two examiners, immediately (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months using US Public Health Service modified criteria.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Statistical analysis was performed using McNemar's test (P < 0.05).

Results:

There was no significant difference in the color match, marginal discoloration, surface roughness, and marginal adaptation. Restorations with RMGIC liner group show 20% Bravo scores on anatomic form at 12 months but are still clinically acceptable.

Conclusion:

Nanohybrid composite restorations with RMGIC (Fuji II LC) and flowable composite liner (SDR) demonstrated clinically acceptable performance after 12 months.

Effects of staining and bleaching on a nanohybrid composite with or without surface sealant

OBJECTIVE

The effect of different staining solutions and a bleaching procedure on color stability and surface roughness of a nanohybrid resin composite were evaluated with or without liquid resin polishing (RP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-six disc-shaped resin composite specimens (A1 Shade, Z550 Filtek 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) were prepared and divided randomly into two groups (n = 48). Liquid RP (BisCover LV, Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) was applied in one group (RP) and not in the other (P). Specimen color and surface roughness were determined using a colorimeter and profilometer, respectively. After baseline measurements, each group was divided into four subgroups (n = 12) for immersion in a control (distilled water) or three different staining solutions (ice tea, red wine, and cola) for 1 week. Color and surface roughness were then reevaluated. After measurements, all specimens were bleached using a 35% hydrogen peroxide gel. The color and surface roughness of the specimens were reevaluated.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data were subjected to an analysis of variance for repeated measurements among the groups (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Staining and bleaching did not change the surface roughness of the RP and P groups (P > 0.05). Discoloration in the red wine group was higher than for the other staining solutions for the RP (P < 0.001) and P groups (P = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Application of liquid RP did not enhance the color stability and surface roughness of the composite resin restoration.

Role of TiF4 in Microleakage of Silorane and Methacrylate-based Composite Resins in Class V Cavities

AIM

This study investigated the effect of TiF4 solution pretreat-ment on microleakage of silorane and nanofilled methacrylate-based composites in class V cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight intact premolar teeth were randomly allocated to four groups of 12 teeth. Restorative techniques after standard class V tooth preparations were as follows: Group 1, Filtek P90 composite; group 2, Filtek Z350 XT; group 3, TiF4 solution pretreatment and Filtek P90 composite; group 4, TiF4 solution pretreatment and Filtek Z350 XT. After storing the specimens in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and followed by immersion of the specimens in a 0.5% basic-fuchsin solution for 24 hours, they were sectioned buccolingually to obtain four surfaces for each specimen for analysis of microleakage using a stereomicroscope. Data analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the four groups and the Mann-Whitney test for paired comparisons with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17 software.

RESULTS

At the enamel margins, microleakage score of the Filtek Z350 XT group was lower than those of the Filtek P90 with and without the application of the TiF4 (p = 0.009 and p = 0.031 respectively). At the dentin margins, groups 3 and 4 (TiF4+Filtek P90 and TiF4+Filtek z350 XT respectively) showed significantly lower microleakage than group 1 (Filtek P90). However, there was no significant difference between other groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

At the enamel margins, microleakage score of the silorane-based composite was more than that of the nanofilled composite. No significant differences were observed between the other groups. At the dentin margins, for the silorane-based composite restorations, TiF4 solution pretreatment resulted in significantly lower microleakage. However, the similar result was not observed for Filtek Z350 XT. Also, no significant difference was observed between microleakage scores of Filtek P90 and Filtek Z350 XT with or without TiF4 pretreatment.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In spite of better mechanical and physical properties of modern composites than earlier methacrylate-based composites, polymerization shrinkage has been remaining as one of the main shortcomings of them. Different methods, such as using new low shrinkage resin composites and different dentin pretreatments, have been suggested to overcome this problem. This study evaluated the effect of TiF4 as pretreatment on microleakage of class V tooth preparations restored with a nanocomposite and a silorane-based resin composite.

Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996-2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to analyze the survival of posterior composite restorations published within the last 19 years (1996-2015).

METHODS

In this study only prospective, clinical trials with specification of the failure rate according to Class I/II composite fillings were included. Studies were analyzed according to the observation period (all studies vs. short-term vs. long-term studies). Retrospective studies and/or open laminate studies, tunnel restorations and Class V restorations were excluded. The following variables possibly influencing the failure rate were extracted from the studies: observation period, recall rate, average age of patients, number of patients, ratio of Class I/II fillings, number of restorations, ratio of premolars/molars, operator, method of isolation, bonding generation and filler size.

RESULTS

A total of 88 studies were included for statistical analysis. The observation period of the studies varied between 1 and 17 years, while most of the studies did not last longer than 5 years. Fracture of the restorations, secondary caries and marginal gap are the main causes for failure in the first 5 years (in descending order), while fracture and secondary caries are similarly distributed in long-term studies. Variables of investigation differed greatly in significance according to the respective observation period. The observation period, the recall rate, the ratio of Class I/II fillings and the number of restorations and patients had a significant influence on the overall failure rate when including all studies (short- and long-term). A linear correlation between the observation period and the failure rate was observed. In long-term studies these variables were not significant any longer. No significant difference in the failure rates between the materials per study was observed. The most common commercial composites investigated were: Tetric Ceram, Surefil, Filtek Supreme (incl. XT), Filtek Z250. The mean annual failure rate was 1.46% (±1.74%) for short-term studies and 1.97% (±1.53) for long-term studies. There is still a big need for clinical studies lasting longer than 5 years, as failure rates of composite restorations in posterior teeth increases with longer observation periods.

SIGNIFICANCE

A decreasing failure rate with an increasing recall rate as observed in our study suggests a patient selection in regard to availability and dental awareness. Internationally standardized evaluation criteria are mandatory in order to allow comparisons of the outcomes of clinical studies.

Advances in Nanotechnology for Restorative Dentistry

Rationalizing has become a new trend in the world of science and technology. Nanotechnology has ascended to become one of the most favorable technologies, and one which will change the application of materials in different fields. The quality of dental biomaterials has been improved by the emergence of nanotechnology. This technology manufactures materials with much better properties or by improving the properties of existing materials. The science of nanotechnology has become the most popular area of research, currently covering a broad range of applications in dentistry. This review describes the basic concept of nanomaterials, recent innovations in nanomaterials and their applications in restorative dentistry. Advances in nanotechnologies are paving the future of dentistry, and there are a plenty of hopes placed on nanomaterials in terms of improving the health care of dental patients.

Resin composite class I restorations: a 54-month randomized clinical trial

The objective of this longitudinal clinical randomized trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofilled and a nanohybrid resin composite in Class I occlusal restorations of posterior teeth over the course of 54 months. Forty-one adolescents participated in the study. The teeth were restored with Adper Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE) and nanofilled (Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE), nanohybrid (Esthet-X, Dentsply) and microhybrid Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) used as a control. After 54 months, the restorations were evaluated in accordance with the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. The McNemar and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis, at a level of significance of 5%. Five failed restorations were observed during the follow-up. A change to unacceptable restoration occurred for one Esthet-X, two Filtek Z350, and two Filtek Z250 restorations, which received the clinically unacceptable score, Charlie, for both anatomic form and marginal adaptation. Secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity occurred in one Filtek Z250 and one Filtek Z350 restoration. When the five evaluation periods (baseline and six, 12, 30, and 54 months) were compared, significant differences were found in the marginal adaptation of Filtek Z250 and Filtek Z350. Significant differences in the roughness criteria (p=0.005) were also observed when the three composites were compared after 54 months (Filtek Z350 > Filtek Z250 > Esthet-X), always within clinically acceptable limits. The materials investigated showed acceptable clinical performance for Class I restoration after 54 months. Long-term reevaluations are necessary for a more detailed analysis of these composites.

Polymerization shrinkage of different types of composite resins and microleakage with and without liner in class II cavities

AIM

To determine the volumetric polymerization shrinkage of four different types of composite resin and to evaluate microleakage of these materials in class II (MOD) cavities with and without a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner, in vitro.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred twenty-eight extracted human upper premolar teeth were used. After the teeth were divided into eight groups (n=16), standardized MOD cavities were prepared. Then the teeth were restored with different resin composites (Filtek Supreme XT, Filtek P 60, Filtek Silorane, Filtek Z 250) with and without a RMGIC liner (Vitrebond). The restorations were finished and polished after 24 hours. Following thermocycling, the teeth were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, then midsagitally sectioned in a mesiodistal plane and examined for microleakage using a stereomicroscope. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage of materials was measured using a video imaging device (Acuvol, Bisco, Inc). Data were statistically analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests.

RESULTS

All teeth showed microleakage, but placement of RMGIC liner reduced microleakage. No statistically significant differences were found in microleakage between the teeth restored without RMGIC liner (p>0.05). Filtek Silorane showed significantly less volumetric polymerization shrinkage than the methacrylate-based composite resins (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of RMGIC liner with both silorane- and methacrylate-based composite resin restorations resulted in reduced microleakage. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage was least with the silorane-based composite.

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the three-year clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite, a packable resin composite, and silorane-based resin restorations in Class I occlusal cavities. Twenty-eight patients with at least three similar-sized occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 84 Class I occlusal restorations were placed: 28 with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme), 28 with packable resin composite (P60), and 28 with silorane-based resin (Filtek Silorane). Filtek Supreme and P60 were used with their respective etch-and-rinse adhesive system, Adper Single Bond 2, and Filtek Silorane was used with its respective self-etch adhesive, Filtek Silorane Adhesive. All restorations were placed by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, at six months, and annually for three years according to modified US Public Health Service criteria by two calibrated examiners who did not know which restorative resin had been used. The three restorative materials for each category were compared using the χ2 test at a significance level of 0.05. Cochran's Q test was used to compare the changes across the five time points for each restorative material. McNemar's test followed by Bonferroni adjustment was used when significance differences were found. At the end of the three years, 60 restorations were evaluated in 20 patients, with a recall rate of 71.4%. The retention rate was 100% for all restorative resins. Eight restorations from the P60 group, ten from the Filtek Supreme group, and nine from the Filtek Silorane group were rated Bravo for marginal discoloration. For marginal adaptation, three P60, five Filtek Supreme, and 11 Filtek Silorane restorations were rated Bravo. No statistically significant differences in overall clinical performance were found between the restorative materials except for marginal adaptation. P60 showed the best marginal adaptation at the end of the three years. No differences were observed between the restorative resins for any of the evaluation criteria tested (p&gt;0.05). None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or loss of anatomic form. All restorative resins performed equally well in clinical conditions during the three-year evaluation, and no significant differences were found among them, except for marginal adaptation, in which P60 showed superior results.

Effect of dietary solvents on the strength of nanocomposite, compomer, glass ionomer cement: An in-vitro study

Background:

Intraoral degradation of resin restorative materials involves both mechanical and chemical factors. Thus, an in vitro study was conducted to compare the strength of nanocomposite to commonly used esthetic restorative materials in simulated in vivo conditions.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of dietary solvents on the strength of nanocomposite and other esthetic restorative materials.

Materials and Methods:

Three test groups (nanocomposite, compomer and glass ionomer cement) each containing 60 pre-conditioned samples, divided into four subgroups of 15 samples each and conditioned in different dietary solvents, were subjected to shear punch test in custom designed shear punch apparatus in Instron Universal Testing Machine.

Statistical Analysis:

Descriptive statistics, one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), paired t-test were implied.

Results:

One-way ANOVA revealed nanocomposite to bear most shear punch strength post-conditioning, as compared with the other two test materials.

Conclusion:

Nanocomposite yielded better strength than the other two test materials, indicating its universal application as a restorative material.

Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation

PURPOSE

This prospective long-term clinical trial evaluated and compared the three-year clinical performance of an ormocer, a nanofilled, and a nanoceramic resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite placed in Class I and Class II cavities.

METHODS

Forty patients, each with four Class I and II restorations under occlusion, were enrolled in this study. A total of 160 restorations were placed, 25% for each material, as follows: an ormocer-based composite, Admira; a nanofilled resin composite, Filtek Supreme XT; a nanoceramic resin composite, Ceram X; and a microhybrid resin composite, Tetric Ceram. A single operator placed all restorations according to the manufacturers' instructions. Immediately after placement the restorations were finished/polished. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and at yearly intervals after placement by two other independent examiners using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The changes in the USPHS parameters during the three-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test. Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

All materials showed only minor changes, and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after three years. Only two ormocer, one nanofilled, and one microhybrid restorations in molars failed because of loss of retention. Regarding the clinical performance, there were no statistically significant differences among the materials used (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic composites provided acceptable clinical performance over a three-year period.

A Five-Year Clinical Evaluation of Direct Nanofilled and Indirect Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth

Aim:

To assess the clinical efficacy of posterior composite resin restorations placed directly and indirectly in posterior teeth after five years.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 108 cavities in 54 patients were restored with three direct composite resins (Filtek SupremeXT [FSXT], Tetric Evo Ceram [TEC], AELITE Aesthetic [AA]) and two indirect composite resins (Estenia [E] and Tescera ATL [TATL]). All restorations were evaluated by two examiners using the United States Public Health Service criteria at baseline and five years after placement. Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher exact and McNemar χ2 tests.

Results:

At baseline, 4% (five) of the restored teeth presented postoperative sensitivity; however, only one of them (a member of the E group) required canal treatment and replacement after two years. At the five-year evaluation, all restorations were retained, with Alpha ratings at 100%. Only one tooth (in the TEC group) required replacement after three years due to secondary caries. Color match, surface texture, and marginal integrity were predominantly scored as Alpha after five years for all groups. After that time, marginal discoloration was scored as Alpha in 64% of AE restorations, 70% of TATL restorations, 73% of E restorations, and 87% of FSXT restorations. There were no Charlie scores recorded for any of the restorative systems.

Conclusions:

Under controlled clinical conditions, indirect composite resin inlays and direct composite resin restorations exhibited an annual failure rate of 2.5% and 1.6%, respectively, after five years. Therefore, the investigated materials showed acceptable clinical performance, and no significant differences were found among them.

Extensive composite molar restorations: 3 years clinical evaluation

Abstract Objective. To evaluate the clinical performance of extensive direct composite restorations in molars after 1 and 3 years and to find out the importance of extent of the restorations and other factors related to their performance. Materials and methods. Seventy-four patients with a molar tooth in need of a restoration covering at least three surfaces and one cusp were selected. Patient-related factors were registered and the tooth was prepared and restored by using a nano-filled composite. A topographic system for classification of extensive posterior restorations was developed. At baseline, the operator recorded a clinical evaluation, using modified USPHS-criteria. After 1 and 3 years, an independent observer evaluated the restorations. Post-operative problems arising during the observation period were registered. Results. A change in clinical score from baseline to the 1 and 3 year recall was recorded for all clinical criteria. A total of nine restorations were graded as unacceptable after 3 years (3-year survival rate of 87.7% and a mean annual failure rate of 4.2%). Except for gender (p = 0.022), none of the patient-related factors investigated (age, caries risk, extension of the restoration and presence of cervical enamel) had a significant influence on the survival of the restorations. Conclusions. Extensive direct posterior composite restorations showed an acceptable clinical performance after 3 years. Men had a significantly greater restoration failure rate than women.

Evaluation of the shear bond strength of nanocomposite on carious and sound deciduous dentin

Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of conventional composites with nanocomposites in carious and sound deciduous dentin with the use of self-etching adhesive.

Methodology: Human primary molars were ground to obtain flat dentin surfaces and divided into two groups: Carious dentin and sound dentin group. The carious teeth specimens were prepared by removing infected dentin and area with affected dentin was used for bonding composite. Teeth with carious and sound dentin were subdivided in two groups (n = 15) based on the type of the composite into conventional composite group and nanocomposite group. The composite was bonded to the teeth with self-etching adhesive. All the bonded specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37°C before shear bond testing. Independent t-test and analysis of variance were applied to the results.

Results: The results indicated that the nanocomposite offered significantly higher bond strength compared to conventional composite. In addition presence of affected dentin significantly reduced the bond strength of both the composite types.

How to cite this article: Deshmukh S, Nandlal B. Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Nanocomposite on Carious and Sound Deciduous Dentin. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(1): 25-28.

Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the microleakage in class II nanocomposite restorations without liner, with resin-modified glass ionomer liner and flowable composite liner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six sound premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons were selected and randomly assigned into three groups of 12 teeth each (Group I, II and III). Class II cavities of specified dimensions were prepared with margins located in the enamel. Cavities in group I were lined with resin modified glass ionomer (GC Fuji II LC-Improved), group II were lined with flowable composite (Filtex Z350 Flowable Restorative) and no liner was placed for cavities in group III. All the teeth were restored with nanocomposite (Z 350 Universal Restorative). The teeth were immersed in 0.5% methylene blue dye, sectioned mesiodistally and observed under stereomicroscope.

RESULTS

Group III showed maximum leakage compared to group I and II which was statistically significant. Microleakage was lesser in group lined with resin-modified glass ionomer as compared to flowable composite group but not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of liner beneath nanocomposite restoration results in significant reduction in microleakage. Both resin-modified and flowable composite liners under nanocomposite restorations result in comparable reduction of microleakage.

Comparison of different finishing/polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare four finishing/polishing systems (F/P) on surface roughness and gloss of different resin composites.

METHODS

A total of 40 disc samples (15 mm × 3 mm) were prepared from a nanofill - Filtek Supreme Plus (FS) and a micro-hybrid resin composite - Esthet-X (EX). Following 24h storage in 37°C water, the top surfaces of each sample were roughened using 120-grit sandpaper. Baseline measurements of surface roughness (Ra, μm) and gloss were recorded. Each composite group was divided into four F/P disk groups: Astropol[AP], Enhance/PoGo[EP], Sof-Lex[SL], and an experimental disk system, EXL-695[EXL] (n=5). The same operator finished/polished all samples. One sample from each group was evaluated under SEM. Another blinded-operator conducted postoperative measurements. Results were analysed by two-way ANOVA, two interactive MANOVA and Tukey's t-test (p<0.05).

RESULTS

In surface roughness, the baseline of two composites differed significantly from each other whereas postoperatively there was no significance. The Sof-Lex F/P system provided the smoothest surface although there were no statistical significance differences between F/P systems (p>0.01). In gloss, FS composite with the EXL-695 system provided a significantly higher gloss (p<0.01). EX treated by Soflex revealed the least gloss (p<0.05). SEM images revealed comparable results for F/P systems but EX surfaces included more air pockets.

CONCLUSIONS

Four different finishing/polishing systems provided comparable surface smoothness for both composites, whereas EXL with FS provided significantly higher gloss. SEM evaluations revealed that the EX surface contained more air pockets but F/P systems were compatible.

Nanohybrid versus nanofill composite in class I cavities: margin analysis after 12 months

This study evaluates the margin of a nanofill, a nanohybrid, and a conventional microhybrid composite in restorations in occlusal cavities of posterior teeth after 12 months. Forty-one patients, each with three molars affected by primary caries or the need to replace restorations, participated in this research. The teeth were restored with a nanofill (Filtek Z350), a nanohybrid (Esthet-X), and a microhybrid as a control (Filtek Z250). Ten patients were selected randomly, and the three restorations were molded with a low-viscosity polyvinyl siloxane material. The molds were poured with epoxy resin, gold-sputter coated, observed by scanning electron microscopy, and classified as: "perfect margin," "marginal irregularity," "marginal gap," "marginal fracture," or "artifact." For statistical analysis, the Wilcoxon and Friedman nonparametric tests and paired-samples t-test were used (significance level of 5%). The performance of the three materials was compared after 1 week and 12 months. No statistically significant differences were detected for all criteria (P > 0.05). When each composite was compared over time, statistically significant differences were found for the criterion, perfect margins (Esthet-X and Filtek Z350, P < 0.05). The materials performed satisfactorily over the 12-month-observation period, but all composites under investigation showed a certain amount of deterioration relating to marginal quality over time.

Clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite with and without an intermediary layer of flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation

The objective of this prospective clinical follow-up was to evaluate the 2-year clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite in class II restorations. The restorations were made with and without intermediary layer of a nanofilled flowable resin composite studied in an intraindividual comparison. Each participant received at least two, as similar as possible, class II restorations of the nanofilled resin composite. One restoration of each pair (54) was chosen at random to be restored with an intermediary layer with flowable nanofilled resin composite. The other was restored without. The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified US Public Health Services criteria at baseline, 1, and 2 years. Ninety-two restorations, 46 pairs, were evaluated at 2 years. A prediction of the caries risk showed that 22 of the evaluated 48 patients were considered as high-risk patients. Two failures were observed, one in each group, resulting in a 2.2% failure rate. No statistical difference was seen between the restorations restored with and without layer of flowable resin composite. The nanofilled resin composite showed very good surface characteristics and color match, which did not change significantly during the follow-up period. The nanofilled resin composite showed a good clinical performance with a 2.2% failure rate after 2 years. No differences were observed between the restorations with and without the nanofilled flowable resin intermediary layer.

Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: a 7-year evaluation

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this prospective clinical follow up was to evaluate the long term clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite in Class II restorations with and without intermediate layer of flowable resin composite.

METHODS

Each participant received at least two, as similar as possible, Class II restorations of the hybrid resin composite. One resin composite restoration of each pair (59) was chosen at random to be restored with an intermediary layer with flowable resin composite. The other was restored without. The 118 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 7 years.

RESULTS

Four drop outs were registered during the 7-year follow up (2 with and 2 without flowable) restorations. A prediction of the caries risk showed that 18 of the evaluated 46 patients were considered as high risk patients. Seventeen failures were observed, 8 in restorations with and 9 in restorations without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite, resulting in a 14.9% failure rate after 7 years. The main reasons for failure were: fracture of resin composite (8), secondary caries (4) and cusp fracture (3). No statistical difference was seen between restorations restored with and without flowable layer.

CONCLUSION

The hybrid resin composite showed a good clinical performance during the 7-year evaluation. The use of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer did not result in improved effectiveness of the Class II restorations.

Clinical Evaluation of Resin-based Composites in Posterior Restorations: Two-year Results

Nanohybrid and low-shrinkage posterior resin composites, placed with self-etch adhesive systems in posterior teeth, showed satisfactory and similar results after two years.

Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations

The aim of this article was to report the results of an 18-month longitudinal randomized clinical trial that evaluated the clinical performance of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composite restorations placed in Class I cavities of molar teeth. Three Class I resin composite restorations were placed in each of 35 patients. Each patient received one microhybrid ('Point 4'; Kerr, Orange, CA, USA), one packable ('Packable Premise'; Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) and one nanofilled ('Nanofilled Premise'; Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) resin composite restoration. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (2 weeks after placement), and after 6, 12 and 18 months after placement using modified Ryge criteria. No patients were lost from the study. At the final appointment (after 18 months), 95.4%, 93.7% and 96.2% respectively of the microhybrid ('Point 4'), packable ('Packable Premise' and nanofilled ('Nanofilled Premise') resin composite restorations received Alfa ratings. Regardless of the type of restorative material, no significant changes were observed in the modified Ryge criteria at the baseline and 18-month recalls (P <or=0.05). Three restorations (one from each group) exhibited post-operative sensitivity at the baseline and 6-month appointment. After 18 months, one packable resin composite restoration failed because of secondary caries, while secondary caries was not detected on any of the other restorations. The clinical performance of microhybrid ('Point 4'), packable ('Packable Premise') and nanofilled ('Nanofilled Premise') resin composite restorations was acceptable after 18 months. Further studies with longer follow-up periods are recommended to investigate the long-term survival of these restorations.

One-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of three direct composite resins and two indirect inlay systems in posterior teeth using the modified USPHS criteria. A total of 100 restorations were placed in the molars of 54 patients by one operator. All restorations were directly evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Statistical analysis was conducted using McNemar chi-square test at a significance level of 5% (p<0.05). Recall rate was 100% at 6 and 12 months, and all the restorations evaluated (i.e., 100%) received Alpha rating for the criteria of retention and gingival adaptation. At 12 months for the surface texture criterion, 80% of Filtek Supreme XT received Alpha rating while it was 95% for Tetric EvoCeram and AELITE Aesthetic. For marginal discoloration, 85% of Tescera ATL and Filtek Supreme XT received Alpha rating while it was 95% for Tetric EvoCeram and AELITE Aesthetic. Further, none of the restorative systems received a Charlie rating for any of the criteria at all evaluation periods. In summary, all the restorations demonstrated clinically satisfactory performance with no significant differences detected among them.

The Effect of Flowable Materials on the Microleakage of Class II Composite Restorations That Extend Apical to the Cemento-enamel Junction

The use of a flowable resin composite or compomer may reduce microleakage at the gingival floor of a deep Class II composite restoration that extends apical to the cemento-enamel junction.

Clinical Evaluation of a Two-step Etch&Rinse and a Two-step Self-etch Adhesive System in Class II Restorations: Two-year Results

The two-step etch&rinse and the two-step self-etch adhesive systems tested in this study demonstrated similar clinical performance in Class II cavities after two years.

Effects of Monomer Composition and Original Filler Content on Filler Loading in the Resulting Centrifuged Composites

This study examined the effects of monomer composition, original filler content, and application of centrifugal force on the resulting filler loading of composites. Either Bis-MPEPP or UDMA was mixed with TEGDMA at a molar ratio of 1 : 1. Silane-treated silica (14-20 wt%) was added to each mixture. After the mixtures were centrifuged and light-polymerized, rate of increase was determined as the filler increment of 2.0-mm-high, disk-shaped sections of specimen when compared against the uncentrifuged filler content. Both the original filler loading and monomer composition influenced the filler content of the centrifuged composites. Fillers in Bis-MPEPP-based composites exhibited a higher rate of condensation after application of centrifugal force than did UDMA-based composites. The results were suggestive of underlying relationships among the composition, component stability, and post-polymerization properties of flowable composites.